« Brooklyn-Based Mortgage Fraud Scheme Busted Yesterday's BSA Hearing on Minerva Building »
April 26, 2006
CG Atrocity: There Goes the Neighborhood
Carroll Gardens better get off its ass and create some historic districts pronto. Here's the poster child for the cause: The addition to this house at 3rd Place and Clinton Street, made all the worse by its corner location, has to be one of the greatest bastardizations of a beautiful old brownstone we've ever seen. May their condos languish on the market indefinitely. Do you think it would be possible to organize a buying strike against this place? Picket the open houses? GMAP P*Shark
Here's the rendering of the finished product:
Comments
Yes, Brownstoner, I think it would be possible to get every potential condo buyer in Brooklyn to agree not to buy an apartment here.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 9:34 AM
ahhhhh! woah, that looks crazy!
Posted by: lc at April 26, 2006 9:34 AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Posted by: Brownstoner at April 26, 2006 9:36 AM
Mr. Stoner, see where you and your unused FAR gets you? The only solutions are: landmarking, change in zoning envelope, recession, or mandatory architectural education. But perhaps in 100 years people will fondly recall this crazy go-go era of rampant, eclectic development, before the fall . . .
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 9:38 AM
it's actually kind of fun. brownstones get to be so BORING, MONOTONOUS, and COOKIE-CUTTER after a while. they're all the same. this one has chutzpah. and face it, the original structure is still in tact.
Posted by: like it... at April 26, 2006 9:38 AM
i give the architect props for even attempting such a crazy stunt..maximizing far seems to be the name of the game.
only two steel beams holding up that back extension? takes cojones...
Posted by: ltjbukem at April 26, 2006 9:38 AM
Come now Brownstoner, why are you getting your knickers in a twist. This house actually looks pretty cool. These old houses aren't that precious. I think this is a great example of having both ways. Look for this place to featured in the Times and we're all going to swoon.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 9:42 AM
jaw droppingly horrendous. Good lord.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 9:44 AM
It looks like a cancerous growth. Bleech.
The more distorted housing prices get, the more distorted buildings will become in order to make up square footage for what developers paid for them.
Posted by: renogirl at April 26, 2006 9:51 AM
not cool. looks like the cinderblock thing landed on top of the brick building and is beginning to consume its insides. At this point they might as well get rid of the original roof line. would probably look about half as bad then.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 9:53 AM
The sad thing is there are so few of those corner house with a pitched roof and bay window.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 9:58 AM
I think the condo extension would look pretty cool-- IF it weren't glommed onto an existing building of an entirely different style.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:02 AM
This is why IT DOES MATTER to buy in a landmarked area and why people who say it's elitist to be picky about neighborhood borders are wrong. Actual Carroll Gardens, as dlineated by the LPC, is a very small area. would you pay 50 to 100 bucks a square foot more not to have to look at this every day on your block. A lot of people seem willing to.
Posted by: greg at April 26, 2006 10:02 AM
I think we need to reserve judgement until this is complete. Cinderblocks look ugly but they are what are under just about all buildings today, ugly or not. This could turn out to look really nice.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:03 AM
WOW! That might be the ugliest thing I have ever seen done to a house - definitly with you on this one B-Stoner
Posted by: David at April 26, 2006 10:04 AM
Holy crap batman. I am completely baffled by the balcony action on all the new construction around town. Please does anyone live in one of these buildings and could they explain to me what they use the balcony for???
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:05 AM
I like many modernist buildings, but this is ugggggly!
Posted by: DN at April 26, 2006 10:07 AM
But of course, balcony provides "outside space".
Posted by: greg at April 26, 2006 10:08 AM
10:05
I think they call these juliet balconies in the real estate lexicon. So, if you have a lot of suitors, or very long hair, you might find it extremely useful.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:12 AM
if only concrete block were the finish material. looks like it may be covered with something else (stucco?) long-term.
i believe it was jane jacobs (god rest her soul) who advocated the vital mix of old and new to make our city neighborhoods vibrant. we need more mix and less homogeneity. thumbs up to the both-and crowd!
Posted by: hodge at April 26, 2006 10:14 AM
If you go to propshark.com (45 3rd Place) you'll find photo rendering of finished product. Not encouraging.
Such as pretty house before this.
Looking at nyc.gov buildings dept. seems to indicate will only be 2 family. $1.4M orig purchase + all these extra costs. Will be very very pricey 2 family condo (double duplex).
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:17 AM
Hold your horses, folks-- this addition isn't finished. It is going to look much, much better (and way more contextual) as soon as the cinderblock is stuccoed over and the whole house is painted the same color. (I'm withholding judgement till then.)
Posted by: naomi at April 26, 2006 10:19 AM
I'm for a mix of old and new, but not at the expense of essentially destroying the architectural heritage of a neighborhood - build on an empty lot or a derelict building that needs a complete overhall, not literally on top of a rare corner house such as this, sheesh.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:32 AM
"Hold your horses, folks-- this addition isn't finished. It is going to look much, much better (and way more contextual) as soon as the cinderblock is stuccoed over and the whole house is painted the same color. (I'm withholding judgement till then.)"
Hi Mr Developer.
No, It won't look better. A paint job won't help. It is awkward, unbalanced, a style mish-mash nightmare, and screams out profit motive.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:36 AM
I'm with Brownstoner on the Landmark thing. All the Place Blocks should have Landmark status by merit of having the gardens which give the neighborhood its name.
Posted by: sj at April 26, 2006 10:37 AM
Hodge: I don't think anyone is disputing Jane Jacobs' vital ideas re: the importance of diversity in the urban streetscape. But the fact is, if you're adding onto a historic building you've got to be sensitive to that building-- you can't just throw up anything (like unfinished cmu, as you imply) for diversity's sake. You mention Venturi's "both-and" -- his best historic projects are good examples of additions that are sensitive to the original buildings without being stylistically enslaved to them. In its present state (and probably beyond), this is *not* a sensitive addition.
10:36: Hee, hee, "Mr. Developer"? I'm actually a preservationist. I don't think this is a great addition-- my point was that it will be way less of an outrage-inducing eyesore once it is finished.
Posted by: naomi at April 26, 2006 10:44 AM
naomi:
"this addition isn't finished. It is going to look much, much better (and way more contextual) as soon as the cinderblock is stuccoed over and the whole house is painted the same color."
then--- "In its present state (and probably beyond), this is *not* a sensitive addition."
wow! make up your mind.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:52 AM
People!...haven't any of you see the new Hearst building? It's a great combo of old and new and so is this. You all sound like a bunch of old farts.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:55 AM
amen
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:56 AM
As I said above, "my point was that it will be way less of an outrage-inducing eyesore once it is finished." I was just trying to temper some of the hysteria in these comments...
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:58 AM
I live on one of those place blocks, and unfortunately, there are more than a few architecturally out of context buildings on many streets. I was shocked that buyers would spend well over a million dollars for the new condos at 11 2nd Place, but they apparently sold. But I think people are buying in Carroll Gardens for more reasons than beautiful landmarked architecture. It's still full of quiet, tree-lined streets with a good public elementary school (Carroll Gardens families, I'd guess, choose public over private much more than families in the Heights or Cobble Hill). And though the neighborhood still has the reputation of being unfriendly to minorities, PS 58, according to insideschools.org is only 37% white and most residents are extremely happy to send their kids there.
By the way, we checked out the FAR on our building and were told we maxed it out with our original 20x45 4-story building (on a 20 x 133 lot). We had thought about building a small one story extension with a deck from the parlor floor on top, but couldn't. So I'm guessing lots of place block houses don't have much room to build up. I suspect corner lots have more FAR, or perhaps blocks other than place blocks do.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 10:59 AM
I like the rendering on property shark. brownstoner, can you post this pic as well so everyone knows what the finished product will look like? (45 3rd Pl as someone else mentioned)
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 11:05 AM
naomi,
Whose side are you on?! Stop trying to temper our hysteria! We need more hysteria! Hysteria is the sign of fidelity to the cause! Perspective is the sign of weakness and ideological impurity!
JUDAS!!!!
Posted by: linusvanpelt at April 26, 2006 11:07 AM
Well, if people are serious about trying to extend the landmark district, or to get DCP to adjust the zoning, start getting organized and complain loudly to the local electeds -that's the best way to get the City's attention. That's how neighborhoods all over the city have gotten "contextual rezonings," including, in some neighborhoods. Has CG had any "town hall meetings" with the Mayor?
Posted by: anon2 at April 26, 2006 11:09 AM
Contextual architecture is the worst, most offensive kind of design there is. This tact (and the community groups that stand behind it) is why NYC is so far behind other international cities in outstanding architecture. I have never seen faux-old cut the mustard. It doesn't work and this is an example of good design that does!
Anyway, kudos to Brownstoner for being a provocateur this morning - I bet he secretly likes it but just wanted to get us going.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 11:15 AM
a couple of months ago i looked at the house next door, and lost interest when i realized how totally eclipsed the back was going to be by the pod on top of the corner house. on that day, the construction crew was loading cinderblocks and giving hate stares to anybody who had the gall to look at what they were doing. maybe they were just having a bad day, but the level of stress seemed higher than normal. do construction workers feel guilt about acts of architectural vandalism?
Posted by: looking at April 26, 2006 11:23 AM
Come on. Extensions on existing homes are one thing, but to pile crap on *top* of the really pretty pitched roof? Oy.
It looks like a Williamsburg monster is trying to shove a brownstone down its gullet.
Posted by: Ugh. at April 26, 2006 11:28 AM
Oh. My. Gawd.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 11:37 AM
maybe one or two more *pretty* pitched rooves would make things better then... hell, let's make CG a pitched roof, brownstone themepark! yay!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 11:37 AM
Brownstoner is loving this - keep it up
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 11:41 AM
Excellent attempt of the old meeting the new. I can't wait for the finish piece to see the contrast of the two.
I thought we didn't live in Switzerland or in a Communist country. If it isn't that fact that you guys attempt to impede on an expression (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder), your ACORN group decides to enter the new developments in DUMBO.
I knew that when the peep shows on 42nd street were being shut down it was the beginning of Communism (Relatively the same as the Cabarets shutting down nearly 100 years ago in Russia)
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 11:47 AM
My two cents. I know that my nabe of Greenpoint is not too historically districted. And because of this, we are paying a price of developer madness. How many pictures of ugly outlandish, out of context buildings are being raised up out of the urge to make quick mega bucks.
The streets that are NOT historic districts have incredible finds...The outside of these mostly frame houses are sided, but the interiors feature lots of historic goodies that MANY folks retain, restore and renovate in the Old House style.
But Greenpoint doesn't have the political muscle at all to stop the overbuilding or to have a say in the esthetic features.
It is sad, you know. You all in the nabes that are majority landmarked are lucky.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 11:53 AM
Well, I bet the light in those back rooms is pretty spectacular....
Posted by: Park Sloper at April 26, 2006 11:58 AM
I agree with some posters here, and I've heard b'stoner talk about this in the past; it is interesting and important to have some mixed architecture, but I think we've gotten to the point where, when you see modern architecture, you really want it to be good and I just don't think that ANYTHING stuccoed can be good.
my $0.02
Posted by: k-veb at April 26, 2006 12:10 PM
I'm a modernist.
This is the ugliest picture I have ever seen on this website, and stucco'ing it isn't going to help the ackward proportions or max-zoning-envelope formmaking. They should have at least gone ahead and pulled the old eaves off, God help them.
Additions benefit when they are "additions" -- not co-planar globbings-on. No subtlety, no scale, no grace, no thanks.
[didn't bother to view the rendering; these tend to be fictions designed to get construction funding and the like]
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 12:28 PM
Can you speLl U*G*L*Y?????
Posted by: ME at April 26, 2006 12:38 PM
Looks kind of like a wig doesn't it?
You guys are lucky if all you've got is that one. Come on down to Greenpoint and feast your eyes on the newly built... things. Emphasis on plural.
They range from square and boxy to...square and boxy. Details are numerous: from over the top: Lego meets Warhol, to big flat balconeys that jut out like pouting lower lips.
And don't you dare ask if the community board is helping to steer a sense of design esthetics. I'll laugh so hard I'll cry.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 1:00 PM
Anyone remember Michael Graves' proposal(s) for adding onto the Whitney Museum? This does pretty much the same thing Graves was criticised for - engulfing a building that wants to be freestanding. Happily, that never happened.
Posted by: Halden at April 26, 2006 1:02 PM
Sooooo, the question remains should a building on a landmarked block carry a premium to one on a block where something like this can be built? What should that premium be? Or, is there already a premium and if so what is it? Any thoughts?
Posted by: Greg at April 26, 2006 1:34 PM
What if the BORG assimilated a brownstone...
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 1:37 PM
I think that it looks like a cheap wig.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 1:37 PM
does it come with the Porsche in the rendering?
Posted by: mtz at April 26, 2006 1:39 PM
it's bad - I second 'an architect in Brooklyn' - It's not well done. Glomming the addition up on top of the building is what makes it really objectionable.
Here's a link to Louis Khan's famous addition to the Yale Art Gallery, to me a successful example of a modern addition to a classic building. If I remember correctly, the was also used by Tom Wolfe in "From Bauhaus to Our House" as an example of the awfulness of modernism:
http://www.artinfo.com/News/Article.aspx?a=1589&c=11
Posted by: will at April 26, 2006 1:48 PM
If the facade were to coordinate better with that of its neighbors (e.g., stucco it in an architectural "brownstone" color) then the building wouldn't be so bad - it would actually fit in quite well (though I still don't like the way it (greedily) encroaches upon so much of the roof line of the neighboring building.
Posted by: anon2 at April 26, 2006 2:08 PM
I agree that it's ugly. But Brownstoner, I hope you were joking with your harsh statements about the developer. Just because it's not our taste doesn't mean we should boycott or put curses on people. You WERE joking.....right?
Posted by: Yente at April 26, 2006 2:16 PM
Thanks for posting the rendering of the finished product. It looks as the developer will sensitively preserve the ugliness of the addition as work progresses.
Posted by: DN at April 26, 2006 2:28 PM
This is hideous. The finished building looks the same except its painted black as if dark coloring is going to help it hide. Why preserve the old roof line? It just highlights that you buried an old house with a new extension.
Posted by: sandstone at April 26, 2006 2:46 PM
although this addition may look horribly ugly, especially from that angle and mid construction photo, at least there is an atempt to save the original and contrast it with the new. if you look closer, the windows line up, the cornice/eave detailing is preserved. a lot of people would of just torn it down and butchered it with the fedders style. This may not be a case study in successful intervention with existing architecture but it is a good discussion. This building IS a case study: the porterhouse by SHoP Architects
http://www.nyc-rchitecture.com/CHE/CHE-036.htm
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 2:49 PM
"...when you see modern architecture, you really want it to be good and I just don't think that ANYTHING stuccoed can be good"
K-veb-- apologies for taking your remarks somewhat out of context, but many modern architectural icons are in fact stuccoed. Le Corbusier's Ville Savoye, Rietveld's Schroder House, and Mendelsohn's Einstein Tower, to name a few biggies. Its not the material, its what you do with it that counts.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 2:50 PM
If the "designer" or developer had made the addition more open and used more glass so that the visual weight of it didn't overwhelm and loom over its neighbors, it would be better. Also, the diagonal stucco pattern is completely gratuitous. They should go with a rectilinear pattern that ties into the old building.
But the reality is that nothing short of starting over will make this addition look good.
Posted by: another brooklyn architect at April 26, 2006 3:00 PM
also, i question how they got this approved because even though they may have had unused FAR, there are also lot coverage restrictions, and they seem to have covered every inch of the lot with a building (the garage counts). this is not allowed in residential districts under zoning regulations.
Posted by: another brooklyn arch at April 26, 2006 3:05 PM
Renzo Piano he ain't
Posted by: Ando at April 26, 2006 3:07 PM
I've walked past that building and its not that bad. In fact, I had a conversation with someone to the effect that it was admirable that they were maintaining the old form of the original while making an impressive new addition.
The city is not a museum. Neighborhoods are not exhibits.
Posted by: Redhooky at April 26, 2006 3:27 PM
I wish the addition had totally consumed the original brownstone. What's so special about a brownstone? I suppose if one nostalgically yearns for the good ol’ days of handlebar mustaches and barbershop quartets, brownstones might be appealing. But please, people, it’s 2006. Pass me a root beer.
Posted by: ghidra at April 26, 2006 3:55 PM
I just moved from 2nd Place and Court to the Bronx because of work. I love Carrol Gardens and miss it with all of my heart. Sigh. I miss Brooklyn so much, it breaks my heart even more. Sigh again.
Anyway, at least from the front on Property Shark, you can't really see the backyard addition, so the house rows still seem uniform. It also seems a little recessed from the side of the house and since there's a buiding directly behind it, it doesn't seem as bad and mocking as the renderings make it out to be. Who knows? Maybe I'll reserve opinion until its finished and too late to complain.
Posted by: T-Ann at April 26, 2006 3:56 PM
whoops... missed the second L... I really am I former resident...
Posted by: T-Ann at April 26, 2006 3:57 PM
I like it.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 4:08 PM
What a good point Ghirda (I'm being sarcastic). In the words of Carlos Mencia, "Duh da duh!"
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 4:13 PM
I like the interaction of the two contrasting pieces. It's like a Hagelian dialect. The thesis vs. the anti-thesis. The synthesis is very well expressed, though I'd wish the contrast was also mor in the proportion of the two objects. In any event, it interacts very well
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 4:14 PM
it's horrendous. i'm thinking the original intent took a very wrong turn. reminds me of catherine keener's house in friends with money which i just saw.
Posted by: efb at April 26, 2006 4:27 PM
I'm ardently anti-fedders, but I think this warrants a wait-and-see attitude. Granted, the current, exposed cinder block isn't doing it any favors and i'm not wild about the exposed, parlor-level patio and stair bulkhead. However, the new windows look well-designed and I think it actually has an interested relationship to the existing building (which I am VERY happy is not being demolished). The rendering is too small to make anything out regarding the materiality of the new facade... I'm not wild about the color shown, but hopefully it won't be stucco or CMU.
Actually, the part I find most revolting is the 2-car garage.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 4:36 PM
Can't talk now. On my way to blow the damned thing up.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 5:08 PM
The addition looks like it is creeping over the roof of the brownstone like the Blob.
Posted by: DN at April 26, 2006 5:57 PM
What everyone seems to be missing is that the addition (intentionally) amounts to a post-post-modern commentary on pop-mythical antitheses such as authentic vs artificial, rich vs. poor, old vs new. (This is evident not only in the form and material used, but also in its juxtaposition with the original structure.) Given this observation, to merely state one's aesthetic reaction is a self-indulgent and bankrupt way of misdirecting attention from the true questions such an addition raises. Brownstoner readers should move away from the false 'ugly/not ugly' dialectic and concentrate on more relevant questions -- e.g., how does the addition affect the neighborhood's inner space? To what extent is the concept of an addition redundant from the outset, given that time itself delimits our movements through our so called 'homes'? (In other words, is it really possible to 're-inhabit' a dwelling whose walls are merely societal constructs or memes?)
Posted by: jls at April 26, 2006 6:10 PM
awesome! :)
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 6:18 PM
I can't believe that I waded through 70-some-odd posts before stumbling on to DN's wise words. Why didn't I start with the most recent post?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 6:50 PM
This just made me toss my cookies. The owner should be dragged out in the middle street and beaten with a cinder block. It is revolting.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 6:52 PM
Quasimodo comes to Brooklyn.
Posted by: ANON at April 26, 2006 7:26 PM
why bother with a f***you fence when you can build a f***you extension?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2006 7:37 PM
(1) I wish someone has the knowledge to response to 3:05;
(2) what is the cut-out space on the "parlor-floor" level of the addition - is that the "juliet balcony" as 10:12 dubs it? Is that a zoning loophole? Does a balcony not count towards FAR, so you have lot area left over that you can cover with the garage?
Also: can you walk from the juliet balcony to the roof of the garage and then drop into your convertible Porsche? ;)
Posted by: anon2 at April 26, 2006 8:14 PM
who cares what you think, posters? you don't own it. okay, obviously i do care because i'm posting, but that's not the point. i grew up a block away from there. if 30 years ago, someone bought that house, the owners could have vinyl sided that baby and the neighbourhood would have been joyed beyond belief that it wasn't another flop house. but fancy pants manhattan folks think it's a quaint neighbourhood now. oh, wait, i'm a fancy pants manhattan folk now, but i think as long as it's not blocking anyone's light, it's okay. and you'd rather have this on a corner then in the middle of a block, i'd think. most zoning laws allow larger buildings on corners because they are less imposing there.
oh, and historic zones suck, you end up with beacon hill boston then. viva diversity, viva property rights.
Posted by: point of view at April 26, 2006 9:21 PM
Lots of things to respond to:
Ghidra - you're right, it would have been better to just demolish the brownstone. But anything would be better than this.
3:05 (becuase 8:14 asked) - I'm not an architect, but I think the rules are different on a corner lot.
4:14 - that's Hegelian, not Hagalian. And no, there is no synthesis here.
2:49 - the ShOP building is very different that this. That building juxtaposes the new and the old in materials and massing. This building swallows up the old, leaving no room for dialogue. Compare ShOP with Graves at the Whitney - like Graves, the Carroll Gardens building really has no respect for the original artifact.
Anon2 @ 2:08 - I don't think any amount of lipstick (brownstone or otherwise) will stop this from being a pig.
Posted by: Halden at April 26, 2006 10:10 PM
i love it and can't believe how may prissy, conservative nostalgists are out there insisting that no one touch a brick on these precious brownstones. same attitudee that so badly compromised the whitney expansion. god forbid the city evolve. it's this nimby reactionary philosophy that has made new york the architectural wasteland it is. let the damn brownstones breathe before the whole neighborhood suffocates under the weight of upper middle class wasp traditionalism.
Posted by: nickg at April 26, 2006 11:27 PM
i mean I grew up in the neighborhood, cobble hill to be precise, and played little league baseball for sacred heart / st. stephens right down the street from that corner, and I can assure you the potential for gentrified ossification is almost inevitable. The neighborhood/era I grew up in had a good bit of ethnic diversity and cultural flair, and now, thanks to early stage gentrifiers like my family, is almost as homogeneous as it’s even bluer blood uptown neighbor Brooklyn Heights. The least the new money could do is bring some stylistic variety with it, rather than just donning the musty shroud of old money and drifting into a cultural slumber like some dowdy old matron.
Posted by: nickg at April 26, 2006 11:52 PM
Hey Nick G(uido), the CG's folks who lived there for generations did some great stuff with the houses by ripping out the original detail and pouring concrete over the front and back gardens. Love the awnings too and the concrete lions - thanks. I love your ideas for the future too. Let's destroy irreplacable houses to prevent "ossification". I'm glad they did that in Europe too, otherwise it would be so boring. I can't wait until everything in NY looks like cheap suburban/urban sprawl.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2006 12:30 AM
Oh, that really is ooooglyyy! Someone should send that photo to Old House Journal for their "remuddling" page, what a perfect example.
There's nothing wrong with an expansion that makes sense, modern or not. The new entrance to the Bklyn Museum may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it at least has rhyme and reason to it. Most people understand architecture and neighborhoods can't stand still, but that doesn't mean it has to get it's butt whipped like this poor building did. The balcony really sends it over the edge. Gack!!!
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 27, 2006 1:04 AM
Halden, you're an asswipe and yes, it is Hegalian. But you wouldn't know the abstract association if it smacked you in the face.
None of you who dismiss this project (In its early raw stage) are even remotely competent to criticize it.
As someone mentioned way above, beauty is subjective. I don't recall ever hearing an artist getting their advise on how to express themselves from the general ignorant public. So until you guys get a degree in Architecture and own or work in a a firm, I suggest to keep the comments to constructive rather than self-referential blabber
Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2006 7:38 AM
Actually, Anon 7:38, this kind of dialogue is quite constructive, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the various views expressed.
Posted by: Brownstoner at April 27, 2006 9:16 AM
This looks like it was built in Queens, which is not a compliment.
Posted by: decafisevil at April 27, 2006 9:32 AM
Synthesis is not created simply by positing the antithesis. One must understand the thesis first, which (IMHO) is not the case here.
For me it is not a question of materials or finishes, but of basic massing and design. The historic building in question had its own freestanding, sculptural quality. That quality is completely negated by this addition. Hence, I see no synthesis here - only thesis and antithesis.
Posted by: Halden at April 27, 2006 9:45 AM
Glad to see comments are still alive on this one. I walked past last night. Have you seen the houses on the opposite side of Clinton? This is not the worst architecture in the hood.
Posted by: anon at April 27, 2006 10:05 AM
It's a mullet.
Posted by: Rusty at April 27, 2006 10:24 AM
it looks like an oversized mutt humping a helpless poodle.
Posted by: DP at April 27, 2006 11:27 AM
A mullet, you idiot, is something subtracted, while this is an addition.
And Halden, why do you constantly refer this is as historic. Would my 90 year old grandmother be referred to as historic because of her age? The building has no historic designation.
As for the lesson in Hegal, I suggest you leave that to those with an understanding of abstraction. The association I made was a metaphor.
The building, as existing, had no composition. The cornice and victorian flavor is derived from Roman and is more of a rhytmn.
The attempt of this designer is a composition. Two objects interacting, similar to a musical composition. Each piece is identifiable as is a classical arrangement.
You're too obtuse to see beyond the eye-candy that these and many other over-rated buildings possess.
It's like talking to a bunch of Odyssean sailors in some form of hypnotic state caused from sea sirens.
Why are brownstones so important to begin with. They're sandstone cookie-cutters of the late 19th century. They are what the post war cookie-cutter buildings in Queens are.
Would it have been more appealing to you if the addition was more in the language of the existing building?
If you answer yes, then you're the type that would not be offended to reading a Hemmingway novel has added more chapters to it, and copying the Hemmingway vernacular. Identity is key here and the contemporary addition to the building is what will identify it rather than attempt to mimic it.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2006 11:49 AM
What a good read this string of comments has been! I am particularly intrigued by the self-righteous, venomous pontifications of anon 11:49. Obviously, this anonymous Faustian attended college.
Posted by: sb at April 27, 2006 1:10 PM
The only problem with this design are those dinky columns. Make it a cantilever. Is this a Scarano?
Posted by: Archigod at April 27, 2006 2:30 PM
Look at the rendering Archigod, Columns will be buried inside a wall.
As for sb get a job as a college professor and impress a newbie college student with your reliable pocket thesaurus
Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2006 3:06 PM
I said historic, not Historic - the whole point of this thread is that the building in question has no landmarks designation. And yes, I think that a 140-year-old building is historic.
But I would find this addition awkward no matter how old (or new) the building it sat upon was. I said before, this is really all about massing for me - it has nothing to with materials or contemporary vs. historicist vocabularly.
If this composition is a conversation between two periods, the 21st century is shouting down 19th. It doesn't have to be that way.
Posted by: Halden at April 27, 2006 4:37 PM
What a piece of crap.
I'm all for doing things differently (I put corrogated steel on the back of my brownstone). but there's ain't no composition here. It's an amateurish way to gain more space. For example, they could have done something to mirror the orignal roof line, which is very unsual for the neighborhood. That would have been composition. This is worse than that new building they put up between henry and clinton on 1st or 2nd (can't remember exactly).
You can spout all the ivory-tower theories you want, but the question is - does it look nice? Answer:no!
The point is that the brownstowns may be cookie-cutter (which is an exaggeration, there are many variations) but they are elegant.
Posted by: tl at April 27, 2006 5:42 PM
I don't know the details of the existing neighborhood zoning (any zoning mavens out there?). But it wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't reflect the existing built character but is, rather, a "floppy shoe" which can result in excessive massing that makes new development (such as this addition) look out-of-scale with the old.
So a neighborhood has two choices, doesn't it? Community consensus (or level of political will) can be, (1) The existing zoning and non-landmarked status are fine just as they are. We'll accept new, as-of-right development in whatever form it takes as long as it conforms with the existing zoning, which provides sufficient controls.
Or (2), we need more controls. Maybe it's an adjustment in the underlying zoning. Maybe we could use a few design controls (e.g., do we want to address the issue of the encroachment of a new addition over an existing building's roof line?) I'm not sure how design controls can be provided if the neighborhood isn't a "special district," though.
On the more activist end, property owners could endeavor to landmark their individual properties. If there's sufficient consensus and political will, the landmarking district could be expanded.
The discussion on this board of aesthetics, nostalgia, balancing existing character and new development, etc., etc. - are all really fun and interesting. But in the end, aren't these the bottom-line choices?
Posted by: anon2 at April 27, 2006 6:59 PM
My professor warned me about vapid individuals who have no idea about what their talking about.
Architecture is a subjective topic, but to the trained eye it is more than coffee table talk (See above comments).
Though some of Anon's points about composition are abstract he/ she makes a great point about the lack of proportional contrast.
Regarding the historic (Historic) aspect, I find myself thinking you can make the same subjective comparison with a rock, an old TV, and old Mac computer, etc.
These homes have value, but only to those who care for them.
So, whether one finds it historic (Historic), appealing, uuuuugly, etc. it is their opinion and only that.
I would rather be the Architect of a building that generates this much interest than someone who designs to appeal to the masses. An Architect is an architect, and a politician is an animal
Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2006 8:07 PM
so, basically you're saying that you were the architect, right?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2006 9:08 PM
Nope, not the Architect.
No Architect in their right mind and with that ego would defend themselves or their work. It's petty, unlike you who defend your subjective reasoning for disliking it
Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2006 10:24 PM
The finished rendering actually looks a lot like the Park Slope 6th Ave place you spoke well of this week, Brownstoner.
Posted by: renogirl at April 27, 2006 10:34 PM
you mistakenly think that your opinion is objective...
Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2006 10:46 PM
I will miss the old lines of the building...I remeember walking by often and hoping they'd replace the cheesy brown siding on the bay window extension with brown clapboard.
I feel bad for the neighbors who have lost their light...that's not fair to do.
Posted by: behind the libes at April 27, 2006 11:47 PM
Yeah, behind the libes, lets ask everyone of the neighbors before we build. As a matter of fact, let's vote on it. How long will that take, and more importantly who gives a f**k.
Kudos to the property owner and to the Architect for expressing themselves.
If you want more light upgrade your lighting or move to suburbia
Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2006 11:39 AM
I work at City Planning. The building is in an R6 zone fronting on a wide st: maximum FAR 2.43, built FAR 1.25. I'm assuming this is being developed pursuant to Quality Housing regs, which allow for greater lot coverage (80%) but cap the height at 65 ft. The front yard probably satisfies the 20% requirement, or the existing garage meant that the pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage was grandfathered. Here's a Pictometry photo of how the site used to look:
http://tinyurl.com/ptd4b
Posted by: planner at April 28, 2006 2:13 PM
you can also see the dept of buildings filings for the site here:
http://tinyurl.com/mtfc4
looks like there are 2 open violations for work w/o permit and a number of complaints about after-hours work, beams that appear to be slanting.
Posted by: builder at April 28, 2006 2:21 PM
Speaking from the point of view of someone who has taste, this has got to be the most HIDEOUS expansion of a building I have ever seen!!! OH MY GOD!!! It's an insult. I could see a modern addition on the back of a building, but to completely ruin the streetscape in one fell swoop.
What were they thinking? Couldn't they just buy a vacant lot? How completely sad.
Posted by: Ed at April 28, 2006 5:19 PM
I wish I knew how to interpret 2:13's technical info. So is the zoning for this corner lot in keeping with the existing built character of the area? Or does it get you overscale development?
A 65 foot height limit sounds high for Carroll Gardens - most of the existing buildings top out at around 50 feet, don't they? (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Also, 80% lot coverage sounds high - but then again it's a corner lot.
??
Posted by: anon2 at April 28, 2006 7:18 PM
Michael Just, the Architect of record for the job, has as much right to build within the zoning and code regulations as anybody with a license has. I just hope he has the backbone to withstand the public as well as the onslaught of DOB reviews based on this Posting.
Posted by: scarano at April 28, 2006 8:21 PM
I would suspect it is within the allowable zoning. In many areas, allowable zoning is "bigger" than the existing zoning, even when contextual zoning is in force. As you (7:18) note, a 65' height limit and 80% lot coverage is well above the existing built fabric. As is the FAR - looking at the addition, I wonder if they are really maximizing the zoning envelope (if the existing building is 1.25, does the addition double the square footage - I wonder?).
Posted by: AnonWB at April 28, 2006 8:31 PM
I presume that this addition conforms with the existing zoning. I'm not trying to point out a zoning-code violation, which would be the province of DOB. (So relax, scarano - at least when it comes to this particular development.)
The point I AM trying to make is (re: my comments @ 6:59 last night), is the *zoning* itself appropriate for this neighborhood? Does the zoning reflect the existing built character (re: height, massing, FAR, lot coverage/open space)? Does the existing zoning encourage overscale development - and perhaps even, in time, pressure to tear down in order to rebuild in a more generous building envelope?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2006 9:08 PM
The Zoning must consider future growth or else we would all still be living in farm houses! What brooklyn started out with in case you do not know was much less density.
Posted by: scarano at April 28, 2006 9:33 PM
I can respond to 3:05 with authority: "It wasn't me."
Then again, I admire the lack of Ye-Olde nostagia. I mean, this project is at least a little *interesting*. And you have to give some points to the BK rendering that doesn't show a kid with a balloon.
Pardon me while I hope on my High-Wheeler. Haircuts were JUST 5 cents!
Posted by: Renzo at April 29, 2006 2:00 AM
I tried. I really tried but I just have to say it- it's hideous. It reminds me of that Greek Kouros sculpture of the shepherd with a sheep draped over his neck. They could have done so much with an addition but just seemed to go with the most expediant. The only good thing about it is that it doesn't drastically alter the house from the front.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 29, 2006 2:28 AM
Holy bleep,
That thing is FUQQEN UGLY.
THEY JUST DEVOURED THAT BUIDLING.
QUICK BATMAN, TAKE THAT BUILDING EXTENSION OFF AND SAVE US ALL FROM THE MISERIE OF LOOKING AT THAT PIECE OF GARBAGE. PLEASE ARREST THESE GUYS WHOM ARE OVERPAYING FOR BUILDINGS AND SCREWING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE.
IT HAPPENS IN THE CITY, NOW IT'S HAPPENING IN THE BKLYN PART OF THE CITY, too.
:o(
Posted by: El-04 at April 29, 2006 11:54 PM
Anyone who thinks this is "cool" lacks the most elementary visual sensitivity and doesn't get that in a dense city with diverse people architecture *must* be guided by "boring" conventions lest the contorted taste of the few be imposed upon the many in a manner the "cool"-seekers would likely find totally unacceptable in any other realm of life. This is execrable architecture of the sort that is suited only to the privacy of one's own gated boondock retreat. Unfortunately, I am not at all convinced that in the present climate the Landmarks Preservation Commission would not have approved this. Brutal disjuncture is the name of the puerile game being played by our putative elite in the early 21st century.
By the way, this house is *not* a brownstone.
Posted by: Francis Morrone at May 5, 2006 1:41 PM
mxealotutho
Posted by: Isiah Falls at October 31, 2006 5:03 PM
the problem in my eyes is that the city lacks anything between developmental anarchy and the frozen in time approach of landmarks.
Couldn't the city set something up where you can replace your windows w/o a 1 yr approval process but the worst of the worst in design elements could be prevented (fedders, cinderblock construction, etc.)?
Posted by: slick at August 7, 2008 1:39 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.